1. the war began because the south seceded. 2. the overwhelming reason the south seceded (the ONLY reason mentioned in their secession speeches) was the perceived threat to slavery. 3. the emancipation proclamation was issued during the war to bolster the will of a north growing tired of it AND to permanently abolish slavery so that no future secession would ever occur over any perceived threat to the institution. 4. most northerners cared no more for freeing slaves than the average southerner did. but, as is the case with most issues, the ones that DO care make a lot more noise than the ones that DON'T. Why would anybody make a lot of noise over something they don't care about?5. There were more than a few southerners who hated slavery. But they were not in charge.

Executive summary - the north did not join the battle to free slaves. They joined the battle to restore the union. The union was rendered asunder by secession, the main cause of which was the perceived threat to slavery. Not no stinking tariffs.

Old Abe's threat of invasion if his tax increases were not accepted definitely stoked the fires of rebellion.

The Civil War was about power and politics. It was regional economics.

« Last Edit: Oct 27th, 2013 at 12:37pm by TowardLiberty »

"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." J M Keynes

"In the first place, the dichotomy between "theoretical" and "practical" is a false one. In economics, all arguments are theoretical. And, since economics discusses the real world, these theoretical arguments are by their nature "practical" ones as well." M Rothbard

2. the overwhelming reason the south seceded (the ONLY reason mentioned in their secession speeches) was the perceived threat to slavery.

Slavery was not the reason for the South's LEGAL secession; if it was, the North surrendered on March 2, 1861. Google the "Corwin Amendment". All a LEGALLY seceded state had to do to make slavery constitutionally permanent was to revoke their secession, return to the union and ratify this amendment. None did because the real reason that the South seceded was the ever increasing federal takeover of power facilitated by the Northern states. The war was not about slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

3. the emancipation proclamation was issued during the war to bolster the will of a north growing tired of it AND to permanently abolish slavery so that no future secession would ever occur over any perceived threat to the institution.

Have you ever read the EP? Tyrant Lincoln freed NO slaves with this. Had Sherman been less successful in his despicable "march", Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election over this proclamation.

4. most northerners cared no more for freeing slaves than the average southerner did. but, as is the case with most issues, the ones that DO care make a lot more noise than the ones that DON'T. Why would anybody make a lot of noise over something they don't care about?

The (still pending) Corwin Amendment, passed almost exclusively by NORTHERN legislators, proves that point. Lincoln and the North could care less about the slaves. Blacks were props that they used to try to justify the evil of their illegal invasion of the LEGALLY seceded South.

Executive summary - the north did not join the battle to free slaves. They joined the battle to restore the union. The union was rendered asunder by secession, the main cause of which was the perceived threat to slavery. Not no stinking tariffs.

Secession was perfectly legal under the 10th Amendment, making the North the illegal aggressor. The Corwin Amendment showed that there was no threat to slavery, meaning that slavery was not the reason for the war. And you think tariffs didn't play a role? Ever heard of the 1831 Nullification Crisis? S.C. threatened to secede....over a tariff!

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” — P.J. O’Rourke

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” — P.J. O’Rourke

That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."

I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” — P.J. O’Rourke

That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."

I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” — P.J. O’Rourke

South Carolina's Declaration of Secession plainly states that the Northen states' nonenforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act as their major reason for leaving. The other states' declarations mention the same act, the danger to the institution of slavery, or the limitation of the institution to the new territories. Dance around the subject all you like, but it's clear that the people of the time period felt that there was a clear and present danger to the institution of slavery once Lincoln was elected.

The same proud Southerners whining about the fugitive slave act didn't say a damn word about Andrew Jackson whiping his ass with a Supreme Court order and using the US Army to ethnically cleanse the Southeast. That translates to, "We Sutherners agree with the federal government abusing its powers when we get what we want."

Frankly, Sherman should have kept the old fires burning longer and the North should have tried and executed the ringleaders of the Confederacy for treason and insurrection just as the South did with John Brown.

South Carolina's Declaration of Secession plainly states that the Northen states' nonenforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act as their major reason for leaving. The other states' declarations mention the same act, the danger to the institution of slavery, or the limitation of the institution to the new territories. Dance around the subject all you like, but it's clear that the people of the time period felt that there was a clear and present danger to the institution of slavery once Lincoln was elected.

The same proud Southerners whining about the fugitive slave act didn't say a damn word about Andrew Jackson whiping his ass with a Supreme Court order and using the US Army to ethnically cleanse the Southeast. That translates to, "We Sutherners agree with the federal government abusing its powers when we get what we want."

Frankly, Sherman should have kept the old fires burning longer and the North should have tried and executed the ringleaders of the Confederacy for treason and insurrection just as the South did with John Brown.

I see that we have a Sherman/John Brown groupie here. Sherman was a terrorist...the kind of Northern filth that was more animal than human. John Brown was a also a terrorist who was properly put down by hanging.

As far as trying the Confederate leaders after the war, I wish that they had....unlike the garbage above that you worship, the leaders of the South were constitutionally correct in seceding....I would have enjoyed seeing the Yankee bastards trying to justify their evil and illegal invasion and occupation of the South.

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” — P.J. O’Rourke